Like yourself, I obviously disagree with Dr. Aquino's views on many points, but have always believed that he at least had the guts to stand on his own two feet and walk out the door to form his own vision of what he felt The Church of Satan (as Setianism) should be. Unfortunately, what we've seen in his "down his nose responses" is pretty much what I've seen since the 70's in virtually every correspondence I've seen, and now on the web as well. And I keep wondering, IF it's his true vision, then why not cling to it and move on, rather than clinging to the mantle of the Church of Satan, all the while decrying it as some flawed social experiment?

Like yourself, I wonder where this "broken shell" of a man that was Anton LaVey was in the years that I knew him and spoke with him, many times daily... and for hours at at time throughout the night in San Francisco? AND I have yet to meet anyone who met someone in that LaVey suit who found him other than gracious, cultured and full of life and strength. Sure. He had his bad days when things were going badly with something outside of his control, in the mundane world, but don't we all? And NEVER did I see him with anything near the attitude that he might somehow have failed with The Church of Satan.

Yes, as Final Conflict says, "he was a true mensch."

No, we might not be the halloween plastic pumpkin and cardboard cut out devil crowd, and we may not bow down to any great manifestation of some anthropomorphic cloven hoofed deity or some Egyptian sculpture unearthed from the sand. And many of us might eschew the current administration of The Church of Satan and its modus operandi, but make no mistake. We claim our RIGHT to it. We stayed with Dr. LaVey and HIS vision when you and others cut and ran. Not saying you were wrong. In your mind, you did what you had to do. So, having done that, why should you even give a rat's ass what WE do any longer?

And yes, we KNOW you've got an ebook on The Church of Satan. You promote it at every turn. And like FC, it's only made me more certain that in sticking with Dr. LaVey back in the musty dusties of the mid-to-late 70's and up until now, I did the right thing. If seems now that you're trolling for membership in The Temple of Set amongst those who might read it and think it's (as Paul Harvey used to say) "the rest of the story," rather than simply your version.

Like I said, I respect you for the guts it took to stand by your guns and move on, and as a military member as well, but your attitude of condescension isn't appreciated. We don't need your approval. I get the feeling that you're trolling for converts. Good luck with that. But those of us who've made our choice aren't going anywhere.

Most people affiliating with the Church during this latter period were generally much better informed and having access to a much larger library of metaphysical works that were not in print during the 1960s and 1970s, particularly reprints of once obscure occult texts. Anyone who was interested in learning about such topics could freely peruse these texts without having to join any kind of esoteric organization.

Without getting into the de/merits of "obscure occult texts" (which range from the illuminating to the lunatic), there was plenty of literary grass to graze back in the prehistoric '60s [and even earlier]. What I see all too much of today are enthusiasts drenched in the waterfall of Net-era data, but without the rigorous educational base to evaluate and apply it discerningly.

Not everyone who joined the original Church of Satan was college-educated, but in my experience they were notably more cautious and incremental about this new experience and environment than one encounters today. This doesn't make much difference in a free-form situation such as this Forum, but in a functional organization setting it engendered an expectation of both protocol and scholarship.

Quote:

Though I am probably biased because I became a member in the early 1980s, in my humble opinion the work and aesthetic of Dr. LaVey during this later period of the Church was far more cultivated and refined than during the first phase in the 1960s and 1970s.

O.K., let's take a look at his presumably-representative Devil's Notebook (1992), breaking its contents down by time-period:

At the time of its founding, and for the first few years when it remained a local San Francisco institution, the Church took itself very literally in a primitive, emotional context. The Devil and his Daemons were all considered to be living, sentient entities who were duly invoked in direct-discourse rituals. Anton wore a horned cowl in ritual, presided on a throne, and was idolized as a semi-supernatural being to be addressed as “Your Excellency”. He was held to be the “prophet” of Satan whose birthday should be considered “the true nativity”.946 In this period his essays for the Cloven Hoof were imperial and dramatic.

8. BY ANY OTHER NAME.Original title: “The Shame of the New Witch Cult”.Cloven Hoof, March V/1970.Reprinted (new title) Cloven Hoof #XIX-3, Third Quarter XXI/1986.

During this period the C/S branched out to become a nationwide institution with a multitude of Grottos and a Priesthood & Regional Agent administrative network. There was a good deal of discussion concerning Satanism as a religion and philosophy beyond the literal images of the Satanic Bible. The original San Francisco group ceased to meet, with Anton LaVey now functioning as head of a far-flung organization. He was now regarded less as a supernatural Devil and more as a sage: the founder of a new and evolutionary school of scientific and metaphysical thought. His own Satanic Rituals reinforced his image as a scholar whose perceptions of Satanism went far beyond anti-Christian “Devil worship”. These essays represent Anton at his most intellectual, and without the anti-social reclusiveness that would pervade his later works. He was a brilliant thinker, comfortable with his prominence in society, speaking to a national audience of Church of Satan members who respected his views and invariably engaged in lively discussions of them.

25. MUSIC FOR THE RITUAL CHAMBER.Cloven Hoof #IV-7, September-October VII/1972.

In May 1975 Anton LaVey announced a decision to sell the degrees of the Church of Satan for personal profit, and virtually the entire organization disintegrated as the Priesthood, Agents, Grottos, and active membership resigned to form the Temple of Set. Two factors are evident in the years immediately following this development: (1) Anton’s shock at the sudden, total collapse of the C/S because of his decision and (2) the dilemma he now faced because, when confronted for his prostitution of the C/S, he had denied the existence of Satan at all except as a dramatic metaphor for his personal opinions. His essays now become defensive and bitter, lashing out at a world he feels to be unfair to him.

Regaining his balance, Anton also regains something of the caustic wit for which his writings were famous. From now on, however, neither Satan nor any other demonic being or force is ever mentioned. Nor is ceremonial magic [as in the Satanic Bible & Satanic Rituals]. Rather the content of his essays becomes a rambling litany of sneering contempt for social values which particularly irritate him. Nowhere is there a good word for any positive inventions, developments, or other social progress.

13. THE BLOW-OFF, OR, KROGER BABB, WHERE ARE YOU NOW THAT WE NEED YOU?Original title: “The Power of Ambiguity - The Blow-Off, or Kroger Babb, Where Are You Now That We Need You?”.Cloven Hoof #XI-1, January-February XIV/1979.

With the departure of Diane LaVey and her replacement by Sharon Densley, all pretense of a functioning C/S disintegrated. After a few intermittent, amateurishly-produced issues by Densley, the Cloven Hoof finally ceased publication in 1988. Diane, who had been with Anton from the pre-beginning days of the C/S, had been a stabilizing influence on him and his writings. Now, in reclusion, he was surrounded only by mesmerized sycophants like Densley. His essays of alienation continue, becoming if anything more bizarre. Now they are unpublished, awaiting, presumably, an airing in this DN book.

I have a near-complete collection of the CH from its 1969 beginning to its 1988 end, so am perhaps better able to see this perspective than those who ate just a slice of the pie, so to speak. Note, incidentally, that The Devil's Notebook does not break its contents down by date of creation.

Quote:

On those occasions that I met Dr. LaVey, I always found him to be an extremely gracious and generous host, and very much full of life. If you speak with others who also had occasion to interact with the Doctor during this period, you will also find that they never found him to be the broken shell of a man you speculated him to have become after 1975. That was not my experience at all.

Entirely possible; as has been amply noted here, he was a master of his audiences, and he obviously enjoyed the 1940s-noir corner into which he had painted himself.

Zeena and Nikolas Schreck had an hour-long phone conversation with Anton on 4/13/90, at which time they were still both his most preferred intimates. They secretly taped it, and about ten years later gave me a copy. The paranoia, contempt, and general disconnection were pervasive.

Quote:

... there were more than a few individuals in the CoS, including yourself, who strongly believed in the literal existence of the Devil.

And it was for that very reason that Dr. LaVey decided to do away with all the kitsch and Halloween horrorshow that he had indulged all the curiosity seekers back in the 1960s and early 1970s. Such carnival hucksterism had long since outlived its purpose and it was time to move on.

Actually Anton stopped that public stuff in San Francisco in 1970, and it was never a keystone of any of the national Grottos except in lighthearted entertainment, both internally and in the community.

Quote:

The truth regarding the birth of the Temple of Set is that you and a number of others vehemently disagreed with this action and took the metaphorical language the Doctor had used in Church rituals far too literally. When the Doctor attempted to clarify the misunderstanding, you and the others were left disillusioned and left to start the Temple of Set.

Nope. Cf. my too-often-mentioned ehistory for the documented details.

Quote:

There are two sides to every story. You have every right to your side. But the Doctor's interpretation of those events were very different and have been corroborated by others who had known the man since the early years of the Church and lived through what you call the "Great Schism."

I can think of no one, certainly not of the Priesthood, who was active in the Church 1970-75 who has disputed, much less refuted my account of the events leading up to and constituting the 1975 crisis. That there were friends such as Art Lyons who just swallowed Anton's whitewash I of course know.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: "M.A."

I would not bother advising you to disregard the atheists trying to clothe themselves in the magic robes of Satanists.

This is a bit rich, Dr. Aquino, considering that this is a forum that is far from theistic in orientation. While I respect you as a person and likewise I respect your views, while I may disagree with them, I have no absolutely no respect for such an attitude of contempt that you hold for those of us who disagree with you regarding the literal existence of a Prince of Darkness.

If I were an Atheist, as indeed I was until 1969, I would have the integrity to call myself exactly that, and not seek to give myself tinsel-glamor by styling myself a "Satanist". Merely redefining "Satanism" as "Atheism-with-frills" makes you look silly to anything other than your bathroom mirror, sorry. Someone I knew once remarked that "self-deceit is the gravest of all 'sins'."

Quote:

Since you've once again brought this up, let me ask you, why do you care so much, after all these years, about what we infidels who dare deny the existence of the Dark Lord think or call ourselves?

If you see someone desecrating, distorting, or misrepresenting something which is meaningful or sacred to you, you stand up for it as appropriate under the circumstances. I swore to the Priesthood on 6/21/70 and have never forgotten that oath, including in much more personally-dangerous situations than this forum.

Quote:

In your view, were the Romantic poets any less Satanic because they did not believe in the Devil? What about Nietzsche, that most Satanic of philosophers? How about Baudelaire? The French surrealists? Indeed, what of all the artists and thinkers throughout history who held true to the Promethean spirit and were - metaphorically speaking - in league with the Devil through and through?

Which one of them called himself a "Satanist"? As for artists and philosophers expressing Satanic themes, no quibble there; but that's not the issue.

Quote:

Now, since you've opened up the discussion and berated those of us who are godless - a thoroughly Satanic virtue - perhaps you can enlighten one such as myself, ignorant as I must be in your eyes, as to what you believe in exactly? My understanding is that you have long since abandoned Satan in favor of Set, or are they the same?

Read my two ebooks, as this is discussed at length therein.

Quote:

And what do you say of those theistic Satanists who worship the Prince of Darkness? Was I wrong to assume that Setians did not worship any deity and instead aspired to become "god-like" themselves?

In Setian initiation the individual ka is a particularized manifestation of the general neter, so to us your distinction is meaningless.

Quote:

And what of Zeena, what is her story? Why did she leave the Temple and run off to Germany to start an even more orthodox Setian - pardon me, Sethian organization?

A story too long for an already-overlong post, but not damaging to either Zeena or the Temple of Set.

Quote:

I cannot see how a man as educated and as literate and as long lived as yourself could possibly believe in the existence of a literal Devil with cloven hoofs and horns and choose to worship such a thing?

I met him [not with hooves & horns, however].

Quote:

Furthermore, I cannot see how you could possibly even sanction the very notion of devil worship or encourage this behavior amongst those youth who, I guarantee you, will one day grow up and look back on those innocent years with folly and laughter at how ridiculous they had been.

Here you strike home more than you realize, because I am far from certain that opening the doors to authentic Satanism is a good thing for all but perhaps a very few. It is rather like the Krel mind-boost machine in Forbidden Planet. With this in mind, Peter Gilmore may indeed be the best social face for "Satanism".

Quote:

Dr. Aquino, while you may not convince me, and I may not convince you, let us agree upon one thing that I had thought you had agreed upon with others beforehand: to not berate and scold others for not accepting as truth the reality that you believe to be true, in this case, the idea of a literal Devil.

I don't mind anyone's belief [unless it manifests as villagers-with-torches]. All I have said here is that people should call themselves what they are, if only so not to confuse others [or themselves]. If the shoe doesn't fit, you don't have to wear it.

Quote:

Otherwise, how different are you from Gilmore, who berates and scolds anyone who dares voice an opinion contrary to his view that there is only the flesh and no reality beyond the flesh? Gilmore considers any belief other than absolute materialism as a sign of mental illness. He even considers agnostics and non-theists who don't conform to his definition of "atheism" as being idiots.

As above, perhaps Peter Gilmore serves a valid social purpose after all.

Quote:

Dr. LaVey, for all his faults, and we're all human, at the very least respected everyone worthy of such respect, including those who shared very different beliefs. He was a true mensch. Ironically your book on the CoS only further confirmed and cemented my respect and admiration for the Doctor.

The old CoS posse each view their time as special and have their own personal views of it. Each of them view Anton as they believe him to be. Each of them view their beliefs to be the top dog, and correct.

Most of us are well aware of the timeline of events leading up from and to the current stupidity of the CoS. We don't need a detail listing of everything to show this. Anyone who can't do the research into their own beliefs on these matters, shouldn't have it spoon fed to them.

Somehow, I find it kinda sad and funny this whole stupid mess. Fuck, what is wrong with acknowledging that you use Satan as a being/archtype during rituals, but don't believe outside the chamber that he's going to ring your doorbell?Why does it have to be all or nothing?Anton was a cool man with many sides. I am sure he is probably laughing at this whole conversation.

Whatever, you guys continue. I'm just going to sell more copies of my own book. lol

Morgan

_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear Fuck em if they can't take a jokeDon't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass

Unfortunately, what we've seen in his "down his nose responses" is pretty much what I've seen since the 70's in virtually every correspondence I've seen, and now on the web as well. And I keep wondering, IF it's his true vision, then why not cling to it and move on, rather than clinging to the mantle of the Church of Satan, all the while decrying it as some flawed social experiment?

An understandable question which I have been asked many times over the years. My answer has always been the same: that I saw the Church of Satan as a consecrated, not a merely consensual institution, and that I swore the oath of Priesthood to the Prince of Darkness on 6/21/70 and have never forgotten it. Depending upon your personal point of view, this either makes me very right or very wrong; and it is probably just as well for my Earthly tranquillity that the latter view publicly prevails.

Quote:

Like yourself, I wonder where this "broken shell" of a man that was Anton LaVey was in the years that I knew him and spoke with him, many times daily... and for hours at at time throughout the night in San Francisco? AND I have yet to meet anyone who met someone in that LaVey suit who found him other than gracious, cultured and full of life and strength. Sure. He had his bad days when things were going badly with something outside of his control, in the mundane world, but don't we all? And NEVER did I see him with anything near the attitude that he might somehow have failed with The Church of Satan.

As above, I have no reason to question that Anton enjoyed himself and his refashioned world once he succeeded in blotting out 1975 [which, as substantiated by the Cloven Hoof & Devil's Notebook, did take him awhile].

Quote:

We claim our RIGHT to [the Church of Satan]. We stayed with Dr. LaVey and HIS vision when you and others cut and ran. Not saying you were wrong. In your mind, you did what you had to do. So, having done that, why should you even give a rat's ass what WE do any longer?

As I have attempted to clarify, my interest is a sacred, not a profane one. So it really has nothing to do with your experiences, and certainly is in no way intended to insult you or any other sincere individual who sought out Anton LaVey after 1975. There are many topics in this forum in which it is easy and fun to exchange ideas, because we are generally singing from the same sheet of music. The question of whether Satan and the Church of Satan were metaphysical realities over and above their physical manifestations is more of an Abyss, and we just have to remember that things look differently from each side of it.

And yes, we KNOW you've got an ebook on The Church of Satan. You promote it at every turn.

Apologies for that impression; I've fallen into the habit of referring to it because in assembling it I sought to include and correlated everything I knew and could find about Anton and the Church, and so much of that material needs to be seen at length and in context. When something comes up here that the ebook addresses, I tend to mention that, that's all.

Quote:

It seems now that you're trolling for membership in The Temple of Set amongst those who might read it and think it's (as Paul Harvey used to say) "the rest of the story," rather than simply your version.

I don't recall a single post here wherein I've ever recommended the Temple of Set to anyone. Indeed since 1975 I've never recommended it to anyone. A bit like Oppenheimer after Trinity, I'm far from certain that the doors we've opened weren't better shut, and it was during the 1970-75 period that they first began to crack.

As for the objectivity of COS, that's a problem for any author. I sought to approach it by as many impersonal sources as possible, all footnoted, and not excluding significant material of an "unharmonious" nature, as for example Anton's 1975 denunciation of myself and other departees. Over the years my impression has been that COS has a reputation of being a far more comprehensive and accurate examination of both the Church and Anton than anything else around, and by no means to their discredit.

Quote:

Like I said, I respect you for the guts it took to stand by your guns and move on, and as a military member as well, but your attitude of condescension isn't appreciated. We don't need your approval.

Condescension is not intended; education sometimes is, and it is sometimes difficult to differentiate them. Nor do some people with strongly-held opinions feel any need for "education"; I think it was Hermann Göring who remarked, "Whenever I hear the word 'culture', I reach for my revolver."

Quote:

I get the feeling that you're trolling for converts. Good luck with that. But those of us who've made our choice aren't going anywhere.

No, discussed above. And yes, we are each involved in a personal adventure with its unique experiences. Forums like this would be pretty dull if we all sang together like a choir; speaking with Satanists is more like herding cats.

what is wrong with acknowledging that you use Satan as a being/archtype during rituals, but don't believe outside the chamber that he's going to ring your doorbell? Why does it have to be all or nothing?

If you're playing a game, there's nothing at all wrong with it.

Quote:

Anton was a cool man with many sides. I am sure he is probably laughing at this whole conversation.

He laughed at such things all the time. There were times when he was deadly serious; much more often you had to watch your ass around him. I once mentioned to Diane that some of the Cloven Hoof mail I routinely got was a bit sloppy. A month or so later I got a letter from some apparent Church member on torn-out binder paper, scrawled in pencil with lots of misspelled words, and a piece of dried-up Chef Boyardee spaghetti stuck on the top. The next time I spoke with Diane, I couldn't help waxing indignant - which resulted in two explosions of laughter at the other end of the phone. Anton said proudly, "It took me half an hour to get that spaghetti just right."

Quote:

Whatever, you guys continue. I'm just going to sell more copies of my own book.

Like yourself, I obviously disagree with Dr. Aquino's views on many points, but have always believed that he at least had the guts to stand on his own two feet and walk out the door to form his own vision of what he felt The Church of Satan (as Setianism) should be.

yes, and this forum is a nice middle ground for opposing parties to debate and discuss such matters. you have probably said a few things youve thought about for years! I have been impressed by both yours and MA's articulate fencing.

Originally Posted By: Jake999

And yes, we KNOW you've got an ebook on The Church of Satan. You promote it at every turn. And like FC, it's only made me more certain that in sticking with Dr. LaVey back in the musty dusties of the mid-to-late 70's and up until now, I did the right thing. If seems now that you're trolling for membership in The Temple of Set amongst those who might read it and think it's (as Paul Harvey used to say) "the rest of the story," rather than simply your version.

give the mods a little credit Jake. I am not aware of any undue solicitation coming from Michael Aquino. rest assured it is not allowed and would be removed, regardless of who posts it. This is not his first ride on the turnip truck either, and Im quite sure he knows how to be a respectful member of a message board by now too.and trolling for membership? I have personally asked him what I thought were pertinent questions regarding the TOS, and was not "trolled" in the slightest. quite the opposite in fact.

Originally Posted By: Jake999

Like I said, I respect you for the guts it took to stand by your guns and move on, and as a military member as well, but your attitude of condescension isn't appreciated.

while this thread might have crashed the rails off the original topic, up until now youve both shown civility and respect. this is important, because as you know, these threads stay up on the internet for a long long time. you come from similar backgrounds, and from a time when many younger satanists, not to mention serious researchers, will find valuable. bickering aside, you both offer important insights into old school american Satanism. I hope you keep this in mind.

O.K., let's take a look at his presumably-representative Devil's Notebook (1992), breaking its contents down by time-period

As I mentioned, I had already read the entirety of your book on the CoS, which if I'm not mistaken includes that essay you just posted. You did disregard "Satan Speaks" as well as later articles by the Doctor. That said, as regards my original point, we'll have to agree to disagree.

As a side note, in your book you mention Feral House, the publisher of "Satan Speaks," to be a Nazi publisher or some such description. Adam Parfrey, the founder and owner of Feral House, is of Jewish heritage, like the Doctor. Likewise his daughter Zeena (and her husband Nicholas "Shreck"), who has gone to great lengths to ingratiate herself with the neo-Nazi crowd in Europe.

I'm sure the Master is not amused with her. Is he? I only ask because you've met him, so perhaps you can confirm or deny the veracity of his wrath.

Quote:

Zeena and Nikolas Schreck had an hour-long phone conversation with Anton on 4/13/90, at which time they were still both his most preferred intimates. They secretly taped it, and about ten years later gave me a copy. The paranoia, contempt, and general disconnection were pervasive.

Doubtful that they were his "preferred" companions. The Doctor had nothing but utter contempt for Shreck from the very beginning that he imposed himself upon Zeena. He only put up with him and his BS because of his love for his daughter. Unfortunately, Zeena chose to side with her self-loathing and wholly untalented husband over the father she so viciously denounced and renounced.

Quote:

If I were an atheist, as indeed I was until 1969, I would have the integrity to call myself exactly that, and not seek to give myself tinsel-glamor by styling myself a "Satanist". Merely redefining "Satanism" as "atheism-with-frills" makes you look silly to anything other than your bathroom mirror, sorry. Someone I knew once remarked that "self-deceit is the gravest of all 'sins'."

I cannot possibly see how there could be misunderstanding here. Dr. LaVey is very clear in The Satanic Bible that Satanism does not involve worship of any kind of deity. In fact, The Satanic Bible goes out of its way to make this explicitly known that Satanism does not involve in any shape or form this absurdity of devil worship.

Let's quote the good Doctor himself: "To the Satanist 'God' — by whatever name he is called, or by no name at all — is seen as the balancing factor in nature, and not as being concerned with suffering. This powerful force which permeates and balances the universe is far too impersonal to care about the happiness or misery of flesh-and-blood creatures on this ball of dirt upon which we live."

How do you reconcile this with your own view of Set and worshipping him? The Satanic Bible is explicitly non-theistic.

Quote:

Which one of them called himself a "Satanist"? As for artists and philosophers expressing Satanic themes, no quibble there; but that's not the issue.

The Christian Church certainly accused them of such a heresy. They certainly accused a great many people of Satanism. Many people were burned at the stake for allegedly being "Satanists."

But you're right about one thing. No one, not a single person throughout history, ever self-identified as a Satanist until Dr. LaVey founded the Church of Satan.

Quote:

Read my two ebooks, as this is discussed at length therein.

I was hoping since you'd decided to open the doors to discussion, veering this discussion far off topic, that you'd take the time to discuss your beliefs. No offense, but wading through the Jeweled Tablets of Set is not my idea of a good time, but perhaps one of these days I'll take the time.

Quote:

I don't mind anyone's belief [unless it manifests as villagers-with-torches]. All I have said here is that people should call themselves what they are, if only so not to confuse others [or themselves]. If the shoe doesn't fit, you don't have to wear it.

And though I am sure you quite sincerely believe yourself to be the earthly representative of The Man Downstairs (not unlike the Pope who believes himself to be the representative of The Man Upstairs), in the end your belief is just an opinion, and you know how the saying goes.

But let me ask you, considering that your beliefs are absolutely, unequivocally subjective, who are you to define what I am or what I am not?

And with that in consideration, how do you reconcile the belief and worship of Set with the belief and worship of the Prince of Darkness? If as you believe, Set had decided to abandon his previous manifestation of Satan, wouldn't theistic Satanism be moot? You yourself stated that the Temple of Set had decided against opening up an "Order of Satan." So, why would you possibly promote something you don't believe in?

And I keep wondering, IF it's his true vision, then why not cling to it and move on, rather than clinging to the mantle of the Church of Satan, all the while decrying it as some flawed social experiment?

Jake, while you and I both know the answer to that question, Dr. Aquino will never come out and admit it. It's unfortunate, because not once in all the years after 1975 did the Doctor ever once write or publish anything against Aquino or the Temple of Set. As far as he was concerned, they could do whatever they wanted and they no longer had anything to do with the Church.

Dr. Aquino though has never let up. I suspect that it's due to the fact that he's never truly gotten over what was, for him, a very traumatic experience. And to discover that the man he had idolized did not and never did believe in the literal existence of the Prince of Darkness - I suspect that drove him and a few others over the edge.

One can judge from the letter the Doctor wrote in response to Dr. Aquino's departure (which is included in the CoS book), that he was just as surprised and taken aback by the revelation that a number of his members literally believed in the existence of the Devil as they were that he did not believe in such a thing!

Quote:

And many of us might eschew the current administration of The Church of Satan and its modus operandi, but make no mistake. We claim our RIGHT to it. We stayed with Dr. LaVey and HIS vision when you and others cut and ran. Not saying you were wrong.

Very well said and I agree completely. In a similar vein, Gilmore feels he and his version of the Church are the sole supreme organs of Satanism and that everyone outside of his circle is an "imitator."

In this regard, Dr. Aquino and Gilmore share at least one thing in common.

Just because you don't know my name doesn't mean I am a newbie spewing shit. I have been involved in Satanism/occult matters/witchcraft since the mid 1970's. If someone looks hard enough they can find records in library books of this. I used to know Herman Slater and be a regular at Magickal Childe since the mid 1980's, hell even Andre S. remembers me from back then. I didn't join the CoS back then cause I was too busy working and supporting myself to send money for a card. I have been involved in a few different groups because I am an information junkie. I get off on learning. I do not play at anything and do not take this shit lightly. I use Satan in my rites and etc. I don't think he is going to be ringing my doorbell just like I don't believe some sex demon is going to ravage me in bed tonight. I understand what I choose to be my own reality. I can tell the difference between what happens in and outside the ritual chamber and how I cause things in my life to occur.

You stated you met Satan in an earlier post, I met a vampire on a train one night. So what, no one else will believe it until they see it themselves. Your personal truths are not mine, your experiences are not mine. You believe in your own reality, and I believe in mine.

We look at things differently. You see limits in how Satan/Satanism works, I don't. Its not about a name, its about an action. Satanism is a living thing, an action taken, not something stagnate. Your beliefs work for you, mine work for me. You are a Setian, and I am a Satanist. That's really it.

My little book was reviewed in the book section, if you want a copy, give me your email and I will send you a copy free.

Morgan

_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear Fuck em if they can't take a jokeDon't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass

The failure of the CoS to remain a viable entity is evident in it's capitalistic ploys to remain marketable to teenagers who have an extra $200.00 to spend on a laminated card. Comparing the CoS to any other LHP organization is an exercise in futility. Even DEFENDING it (the CoS), in its current incarnation directly exposes those who would take up it's standard as being misguided, at best. And, perhaps believing in a lost cause that they wish to purvey, nonetheless also considering the collapse of the grottoes and the dissolution of any semblance of a unifying coherence. Defending views concerning the lack of credibility of the CoS is about as lost a cause as protecting the Snail Darter, its futile and pointless.

_________________________
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

... I do not play at anything and do not take this shit lightly. I use Satan in my rites and etc. I don't think he is going to be ringing my doorbell just like I don't believe some sex demon is going to ravage me in bed tonight. I understand what I choose to be my own reality. I can tell the difference between what happens in and outside the ritual chamber and how I cause things in my life to occur.

First of all, no personal insult intended: My comment was simply meant matter-of-fact - that either you perceive and respect Satan as a metaphysical reality or you don't. If you do, he does not exist to be switched on and off at your preference or convenience (which is what Christians routinely do with God/Jesus), but is a permanent, living presence in your consciousness. If on the other hand you don't, then he is not that, and there is nothing more that I need say. Your decisions are of course your own to make.

Quote:

We look at things differently. You see limits in how Satan/Satanism works, I don't. Its not about a name, its about an action. Satanism is a living thing, an action taken, not something stagnate. Your beliefs work for you, mine work for me. You are a Setian, and I am a Satanist. That's really it.

This once again illustrates a very fundamental difference between the way I regard the Prince of Darkness (whether now as Set or previously as Satan) and the way that you [and ostensibly many others in this forum] do. To me first the Church and then the Temple were/are consecrated institutions under the care of a correspondingly-consecrated Priesthood, each Initiate of which is personally responsible to Set/Satan. This is very literal, formal, and exclusivist. One thing you never did in the original Church of Satan, for instance, was disrespect a Priest or Priestess of Mendes. If you did, you were out. Standards within the Priesthood were even more rigorous, resulting in considerable stress in those instances when they were violated. Anton was insistent that the kind of insincerity and hypocrisy rampant in profane religions never exist in the Satanic Priesthood: "Our Priests must be superior human beings."

So this was an almost monkish atmosphere, quite removed from the Church's public face [which was intended to emphasize social harmlessness by disarming antics]. That is how my Priesthood was extended to me, and how I have regarded it ever since.

This is clearly not the attitude of this forum, wherein everyone has a personally-satisfying definition of "Satan" and "Satanism" and that's that. In part this is due to Anton's, Densley's, and Gilmore's post-1975 actions, but more generally I think it's just a reflection of the "Internet age" and today's so-called "postmodernism" anarchy. To the extent that I speak against it as I occasionally have here, I am probably seen as quaintly archaic at best, irritating and arrogant at worst. My personal Pentagram to bear, presumably.

Anton had a very interesting theory about a related phenomenon, which he called "Erotic Crystallization Inertia" and wrote up for the 1/73 Cloven Hoof. It was later reprinted as essay #23 in his Devil's Notebook, which I assume forum members have on their shelves. In its most elementary context ECI has to do with the abrasive clash of generational styles and values, and the potentially-dangerous consequences of trying to force oneself or others into an ECI-Procrustean bed. More interestingly [and less ominously] the Temple of Set has experimented with ECI in certain workings of time-travel magic, to include not just situational displacement but the acceleration/deceleration of the time process itself.

Quote:

My little book was reviewed in the book section,

Where/which thread is that?

Quote:

if you want a copy, give me your email and I will send you a copy free.

That would be gracious of you. My mailing address is PO Box 470307, San Francisco, CA 94147.

It's okay, I understand what you meant now. Satan does not reside in my brain and make decisions for me. I am the only one residing in my head and fully responsible for all my actions. Granted, some of them are fucked up, but it was my choice.

"To me first the Church and then the Temple were/are consecrated institutions under the care of a correspondingly-consecrated Priesthood, each Initiate of which is personally responsible to Set/Satan..."I can understand and respect your views upon this, but it is hard to take seriously that organization today (the CoS), when current priest make fun of the members and look down upon them. The members are seen as just other kinds of sheep. Why on top of other limiting behavior would anyone want to take them seriously? People are banned just for being members here on this site. Many of the people here were at one point banned from that organization or banned from LTTD. At this point, its just a publicity tool for people. They really have destroyed in my opinion everything the original CoS stood for.

I reread essay #23, I see your point and yet it seems different to me.

People are comfortable with what they know and are uncomfortable with change. If you keep the status the same, they are happy."Anyone who is satisfied with he way things are is going to be reluctant to change his mode of living...while religion has programmed him to remain static, inert, and complacent."

Satanism is not static, it is an action, a way of living, not a way of dying.

You did disregard "Satan Speaks" as well as later articles by the Doctor.

Actually I did touch upon Satan Speaks in COS but saw nothing to be gained by belaboring it here. But if you wish:

Originally Posted By: "M.A.A., COS"

That same year Parfrey published a final collection of Anton’s essays, entitled Satan Speaks. “Fortunately for me and for all of us,” said Marilyn Manson in his Introduction, “Anton LaVey shared his magic, and I think it has made this wretched, fucking planet a better place.”

The Satan Speaks essays were, in a word, embarrassing - being simply one aimless rant after another, including several going into graphic detail about Anton’s ultimate passion:

Originally Posted By: "Anton LaVey"

... the act of urinating in one’s panties. A well-planned, well-executed public spectacle is a goal of the most dedicated panty pissers. Panty pissing is a fetish which gives pleasure to the viewer but, more importantly, to the perpetrator. It need not serve as a prelude to sexual intercourse but rather as an exciting and gratifying act in and of itself.

Among the more curious items that Zeena collected from 6114 California Street after Anton's passing were a selection of photos of Sharon "Blanche Barton" Densley, and we'll let it go at that.

Originally Posted By: "FC"

... in your book you mention Feral House, the publisher of "Satan Speaks," to be a Nazi publisher or some such description.

No.

Originally Posted By: "FC"

Doubtful that they were his "preferred" companions. The Doctor had nothing but utter contempt for Shreck from the very beginning that he imposed himself upon Zeena. He only put up with him and his BS because of his love for his daughter. Unfortunately, Zeena chose to side with her self-loathing and wholly untalented husband over the father she so viciously denounced and renounced.

No, once again here just the later ASLV "party line" about Zeena & Nikolas. Prior to/at the time of this phone conversation, Zeena was High Priestess of the Church and Nikolas was Anton's fair-haired collaborator and protege. Zeena's estrangement from her father had nothing to do with any machinations by Nikolas (who happens to be a very accomplished and sophisticated published author):

Originally Posted By: "Zeena Schreck"

30 December 1990/XXVAS

Dear Dr. Aquino:

With the dawning of a new year, I felt this to be an ideal time to communicate some thoughts to you that I trust shall bring about a new awareness in many regards.

First of all, you should be aware that as of 30 April 1990 (Anno XXV) I officially and ritually ended my position as Church of Satan representative-defender and daughter of Anton LaVey. This ritual brought all contact between myself and the Church of Satan, including my unfather, to a complete cessation. Although I felt it my responsibility as a sincere advocate of the unnamable forces we experience to attempt to fight off the Judæo-Christian hysteria of the ’80s, I became too disgusted with the organization and the individual I was foolishly standing in for to continue this charade in “good” conscience.

While I have no regrets in my battle with the forces of ignorance, and my own unswerving dedication to my religion has only grown, I could no longer defend such an ungrateful and unworthy individual as the so-called Black Pope.

I feel it is only just that I give credit where credit is due, and acknowledge that you have been quite correct about many aspects of the modus operandi of the Church of Satan’s fearless leader. Essentially, he is a coward and could not possibly deal with the hostility that we have had to encounter in publicly defending our beliefs. Despite this repellent lack of warrior spirit or pride on his part, he was filled, and still is, with petty jealous criticism of my efforts. This was easy for him to do from the safe vantage point of the comfortable and risk-free easy chair we know he has lived in for decades.

Besides my public appearances, I have also made many valuable and unprecedented contacts with police and law enforcement officials in the interest of providing more enlightened treatment of Satanists everywhere. Of course, the mighty “High Priest” succeeded in sabotaging these efforts to his own disadvantage, in addition to the disadvantage of all practicing magicians. I believe he is, through his ostrich-in-the-sand stance, a detriment to any attempt at halting the scapegoat fever that has entered all of “our” private lives. Indeed, his irresponsible laziness has repeatedly and ignorantly endangered my life as well as the lives of many who were misguided enough to support him.

The most recent and blatant example of this may be found in the publication of the absurd catalogue of lies entitled Secret Life of a Satanist by (as told to) Blanche Barton. This fluffy PR release masquerading as a book included, with typical irresponsibility, a photo of my son without ever seeking his or my permission. Like all of the self-serving bullshit printed in this volume, the malignant use of an innocent child to buttress a flagging reputation and self-esteem is a new low point in a career already dotted with depths. For your information, despite Barton’s claim, Anton LaVey has never given “tutelage” of any sort to his grandson. In fact my son was shocked and angered at being hypocritically exploited by his grandfather’s pathetic effort to portray himself as a loving family man.

Furthermore, despite the fact that this biography was printed long after my resignation, Barton knowingly lied by perpetuating the idea that I have anything at all to do with CoS and its founder. If Barton chooses to spin other falsehoods about her subject’s life, that’s fine, but she has crossed the line by including my son and myself. You and I are both aware of the countless untruths contained in this book, but I felt you should be illuminated on points relating to myself (at least).

Another fact conveniently not included is the common knowledge that as the co-director of the Werewolf Order, I have paved a unique path of my own inspired by the Western European magical tradition. These very European magical traditions, which I have always maintained as my own, are of more personal importance to me than the largely Eastern and negative Judæo-Christian imagery still so boringly peddled by the CoS. In the desire to appeal to the masses, Barton’s book makes it glaringly clear that the real motive of the Church of Satan is to attract cash from “economic power brokers”; what other reason could justify the sickeningly repetitive flattery she (he) extends to Zionism, Bolshevism, and the state of Israel while safely negating any Norse or Teutonic mythology?

Of course the reason Barton prefers to present me as loyal daughter and #1 fan is to obscure the fact that my real activities in the world are no longer connected to her mentor. The Werewolf Order is and always has been a sovereign entity. Those participants in our magical and public activities are now bound to a state of strict neutrality. Far from wishing to continue the pointless bickering and in-fighting, I speak for myself and the Werewolf Order in declaring that there is no use for these hollow animosities which can, after all, be no part of a truly initiated world view. Under the ægis of Radio Werewolf, my music, writings, videos, and performances are expressions of my personal magical vision. Any other claim concerning my activities is purely to feed the parasitic hunger of that which you have dubbed “the Kennel”.

While we may find some theological differences in our approach, I know you are sincere in your beliefs and have continued to publicly defend them, for which I congratulate you. Laying aside these differences, I’m sure you can comprehend the deeper and more intangible aspects of all of this.

My unfather should never have carelessly tampered with the authentic forces of darkness that he now idiotically believes are his own creation. In fact, many times he has implied that he regrets opening the “Pandora’s box” of Satanism. I have seen first-hand what his insincere and cynical approach to these nameless cthonic powers can do to one shaky and uncertain ego.

I was born a Satanist; my unfather was raised in the mundane world of humankind where he remains. He unwittingly served as the agent of the true dæmonic energy needed to sire me as a genuine magical child. I have never seen any evidence that he honestly believes in the force whom he has for so long exploited as a “good gimmick”. Nevertheless he did succeed in attracting the ideal sorceress needed for my conception. My mother, a natural magician as incarnation of Diana the Huntress, was the driving force of the most positive aspects of the Church of Satan. As you are aware, her design of many of the magical insignias of the Church, her organizational and administrative abilities, her uncredited contributions to the Satanic Bible and Rituals, and her charisma are but some of the elements that proved her to be the backbone of what was once a vital entity. As duality is a necessary dynamic in any form of progress, it is mathematically easy to see that when one portion of the duality is repelled, the other collapses into passivity. I am the living essence of this particular duality maintained at its peak.

In light of all of the factors herein, I also officially severed my given surname and now prefer to be known only as Zeena. As I feel naturally aristocratic, I also have no need for the empty titles of Magistra or High Priestess that have been bandied about and fought over.

Anton LaVey has degraded his own claimed religion, his family, his supporters too often and too ignorantly. He created a monster in me, for perhaps I am too serious about all this for the likes of the High Priest who would prefer movie stars and “expensive” restaurants to any meaningful magical experience. In the end the “balance factor” he smugly refers to will be his ultimate undoing, for the cosmic cards are stacked against him. We shall see where this monster leads.

My last word on this tiresome subject relates to the film Sunset Boulevard. You will recall the aging silent star portrayed by Gloria Swanson. Indeed LaVey has shown himself to be the Norma Desmond of Satanism, lost in decadent, nostalgic reverie, glaring into the camera one last time, announcing, “I’m ready for my close-up now, Mr. Bougas.” Tango music up. Fade to black.

I close this in hopes of ending any lingering antagonisms between us, and to leave this psychic vampire behind us. By imparting this to you, I trust it will be of service to all dedicated travelers of the Left-Hand Path. May this letter bring a long-standing, unresolved chord to its end with best wishes for the coming new year.

In the Promethean flame,Zeena

Originally Posted By: "FC"

Dr. LaVey is very clear in The Satanic Bible that Satanism does not involve worship of any kind of deity. In fact, The Satanic Bible goes out of its way to make this explicitly known that Satanism does not involve in any shape or form this absurdity of devil worship.

Who said anything about "worship"?

Originally Posted By: "FC"

I was hoping since you'd decided to open the doors to discussion, veering this discussion far off topic, that you'd take the time to discuss your beliefs. No offense, but wading through the Jeweled Tablets of Set is not my idea of a good time, but perhaps one of these days I'll take the time.

My beliefs are not discussed in the Jeweled Tablets of Set except insofar as I have written a few articles therein. My personal experiences and philosophies are more to be found in COS and TOS, and are too complex to be handled within the limitations of forum space. I try to answer specific questions as pertinent, but I think you have already seen that with me things spiral rapidly out of "simplicity". [During a commercial break of his infamous 1988 "Halloween Satanism Special", Geraldo Rivera walked over and asked me to please keep my responses to brief, simple words. "Think of it as a national audience of 13-year-old mentalities."]

Originally Posted By: "FC"

And though I am sure you quite sincerely believe yourself to be the earthly representative of The Man Downstairs (not unlike the Pope who believes himself to be the representative of The Man Upstairs), in the end your belief is just an opinion, and you know how the saying goes.

No, I retired from the High Priesthood of Set in 1996. As for this forum being awash in individual opinions such as yours here, so what?

Originally Posted By: "FC"

But let me ask you, considering that your beliefs are absolutely, unequivocally subjective, who are you to define what I am or what I am not?

Call yourself whatever you wish.

Originally Posted By: "FC"

how do you reconcile the belief and worship of Set with the belief and worship of the Prince of Darkness? If as you believe, Set had decided to abandon his previous manifestation of Satan, wouldn't theistic Satanism be moot?

Who said anything about "worship"? And as I noted previously, yes, from a Setian perspective "Satan/Satanism" is properly seen as a very limited-perspective, Judæo-Christian corruption of the essence and significance of Set in ancient Egypt [discussed in TOS and elsewhere in our resources].

So my interest in and concern with Satan, Satanism, Anton, the Church, etc. is necessarily historic: to preserve their dignity, legacy, and importance in the face of all those who, for whatever their reasons, would drag them down into the gutter. I believe I have made this quite clear in COS.

I said in an earlier response that I cannot think of a deserving institution of avowed Satanism to recommend today, and that's a harsh commentary on the situation. [So far I haven't seen anyone else here pipe up with one either.] I think Karla LaVey's is probably the best from the standpoint of memorializing her dad; what it does beyond that and its lively concerts/parties I really don't know. But I like Karla and appreciated her sincerity and intellect during the years when we were close friends, so I trust her.

As for the "Church of Satan", if Gilmore and Densley came to me today and said, "We give up; you can have it," I don't know what I could possibly do with it except to "museum" it [after spraying it with disinfectant]. During Anton's bankruptcy, Diane's lawyers offered me 6114 if I cared to buy it. Didn't have the liquidity at the time or I might have taken her up. Had a sort of fantasy of fixing it up as a SF landmark, with Anton in residence as a lifetime paid caretaker and guide-supervised tours of its restored main & ground floors (2nd floor family private). Densley & relatives would disappear, Anton & Diane would reconcile, Zeena too, and the Sun would come out again and the birds [OK, bats] would sing. Well, so much for that dream!

I have to tell you a Vietnam War story. When we were in the middle of a firefight and someone would radio higher HQ for guidance, and hHQ hadn't the foggiest, the standard response was "Develop the situation."

"Anton was insistent that the kind of insincerity and hypocrisy rampant in profane religions never exist in the Satanic Priesthood: "Our Priests must be superior human beings."

Trust me. It wasn't that much different in the Black House during the 1980's while I was there. I was there PRE Blanch Barton (Densley) and up to and during the period in which The Secret Life of A Satanist was being written. I was the main Administrator, having taken over from Wanda Slattery.

To somehow insinuate that the elevated degrees were somehow less in stature or less meaningful than when you were elevated is ludicrous. Nothing was just given out and those of us who earned... I stress EARNED... our stripes (Certificates of Degree) were no less proud of them and the work we put in to get them than you must have been. If that is indeed your assumption, I take it as a personal insult.

Look. Pre 1975, Michael Aquino had some say in what went on in The Church of Satan. Post 1975, he relinquished all rights to kibitz. If he had really cared that much about it, he would have stayed and worked from within to try to get things to run the way he wanted. He didn't. Sorry if that offends anyone, but really, it's the way of the world. The Church of Satan doesn't tell the Temple of Set who to elevate or set it's standards.

I know you feel you're somehow "educating" people on The Church of Satan, but you talk as if you KNOW what went on after you left. You may have some idea, but it's obvious that you don't know much about what went on in the administration under MY watch. Guess I either kept things running well enough that there were no complaints or I was too boring as an administrator to be a blip on the radar.